Introduction: The Structure and Purpose of the Protagoras 1. The Theme of the Protagoras The author of the Platonic seventh letter1 outlines a youthful ambition of a sort that should be familiar to readers of Plato’s dialogues. “When I was young,” Plato writes, “I had the same experience as many: I thought that, as soon as I should become my own master, I would immediately enter into politics (ta koina tes poleos).” (324c) In his early years, Plato writes, he twice considered becoming involved in Athenian politics, at two distinct moments in the city’s history. The first moment occurred after the revolution of the thirty tyrants, an oligarchic coup whose leaders included several members of Plato’s family. Plato also had a desire (epithumia) to become politically active directly after the overthrow of this regime, (325a) when Athens once more had a democratic government. In both cases, Plato did not pursue the object of his ambition and instead became alienated from political life. In both cases, the causes of this alienation were the unjust actions of those holding political power and specifically, at least in part, their actions towards Socrates. The oligarchs attempted to compel Socrates to assist them in the execution of an innocent man, while certain leaders of the restored democracy were responsible for Socrates’ own execution. Neither the oligarchs nor the democrats were successful in establishing a just government in Athens. Plato writes that the more he considered the state of public affairs in Athens, “the more it appeared to me that it is difficult to manage politics rightly” (tosouto chalepoteron ephaineto orthos einai moi ta politika dioikein). (325c-d) Plato finally concluded that under the existing conditions of Athenian government it was impossible for him to achieve what he desired—to take a leading role in managing the city’s affairs justly and wisely. He continued, he assures us, 1 I take the author of the seventh letter either to be Plato or someone with access to facts about Plato’s biography. I am here making use only of the most general and minimal (and thus hopefully the least controversial) details of Plato’s early life--the more detailed narrative of Plato’s trips to Sicily and the philosophical digression in the seventh letter are not relevant to the subject of this thesis. 1 to look for opportune moments (kairous) to enter politics (326a)—he had not concluded that engagement in the political life was an unworthy ambition. It was rather that Plato had by then come to the conclusion that one had first to engage in other activities to achieve this goal. Plato, of course, came to the conclusion that one must engage in philosophy in order to manage political affairs in a just fashion. He believed this on the basis of arguments he developed and took to be rationally persuasive. Plato takes his arguments to show that one cannot know what a just political order is, except through the activity of philosophy. It is furthermore only through this knowledge that a just political order can be established, that “the cessation of evils for the human race” will come about. (326a) A similar transition occurs in Plato’s Protagoras. The Protagoras is concerned with another young Athenian aristocrat by the name of Hippocrates, who also desires to take a leading role in the political life of Athens. He hopes to achieve this goal through receiving instruction from Protagoras, the great sophist who is visiting Athens at the time of the dialogue, decades before the revolution of the thirty. He asks Socrates to speak to the sophist on his behalf. Socrates, for his part, questions whether Protagoras is an appropriate and capable teacher for Hippocrates. Most of the dialogue consists of a discussion between Protagoras and Socrates concerning the very thing Protagoras says he teaches, namely virtue or excellence (arete)--something, all participants in the dialogue assume, that will enable Hippocrates to achieve his goal. The Protagoras thus begins with a figure similar to the one we find in the seventh letter: youthful and eager to make a name for himself in public affairs. Hippocrates sees a direct and efficient route to politics in the instruction of Protagoras, just as Plato saw a direct route to political influence in his relatives among the thirty.2 However, in the course of their discussion, Socrates manages to make Protagoras contradict himself several times. It seems, therefore, unwise for Hippocrates to take the means 2 Having stated his political ambitions, the author of the letter writes that “some pieces of good fortune (tuchai) for me concerning public affairs occurred, such as the following.” (324c1-2) He then relates what constituted good luck for his political ambitions--the participation of his family in the coup of the thirty. 2 to political power that he first found attractive. Philosophical discussion with Socrates has shown that Protagoras holds inconsistent beliefs concerning virtue. He is presumably unable to do what he claims—namely, teach virtue. Socratic discussion thus serves as a test of competence for Protagoras or any other similar teacher. In order to discern whether the instruction he desires will suitably benefit his soul, Hippocrates must submit his prospective instructors to Socratic examination, a philosophical practice. Hippocrates thus ought to undergo a transition of the sort described in the seventh letter. Like Plato, he ought to see that his ambitions for his life require him to pay heed to philosophical concerns. In the seventh letter, views similar to those expressed in the Republic seem to motivate Plato’s transition to philosophy. Clearly those same views do not appear in the Protagoras and are not the reasons given why Hippocrates ought to live a philosophical life. What is common to the Protagoras and the seventh letter is not an entirely shared philosophical outlook. Rather they are tied together by a common theme, the theme of reorientation toward philosophy. I take this theme to point to the general purpose of the Protagoras. The dialogue is primarily concerned to show how a figure with political ambitions such as Hippocrates must be sensitive to philosophical concerns, must live his life informed by philosophical practices.3 Correspondingly, the central task of this thesis will be to examine whether and how Socrates shows that Hippocrates ought to engage in philosophy. 2. Summary of the Dialogue 3 This is the purpose Plato intended the dialogue to have. Therefore, Plato endorses Socrates’ demonstration that Hippocrates must live a philosophical life if Hippocrates is to realize his goals. I leave the question open as to whether the historical Socrates himself held the views presented in the dialogue. 3 The dialogue can be profitably divided into 6 parts, setting aside the very beginning of the dialogue, wherein Socrates meets an unnamed friend and proceeds to relate to him his discussion with Protagoras. (1) Socrates first tells how his young friend Hippocrates wakes him in the middle of the night and states his desire to study with Protagoras. Before they proceed to the house of Callias, where Protagoras is staying, Socrates questions Hippocrates as to what he thinks Protagoras will teach him and how he will benefit from the sophist’s instruction. Hippocrates is unable to give an answer satisfactory to Socrates. (310b-314c) (2) Socrates and Hippocrates arrive at Callias’ house. Socrates asks Protagoras what he will do for Hippocrates, to whom Socrates attributes political ambitions, should Hippocrates become his student. After some clarifications from Socrates, Protagoras claims that he teaches sound deliberation (euboulia). (318e) Socrates identifies Protagoras’ subject as virtue (arete) or political expertise (politike techne) (319a), then gives two arguments that virtue cannot be taught. Protagoras responds in his “great speech,” which attempts to show that virtue is teachable. (314c-328d) (3) Socrates claims to be satisfied with Protagoras’ account of the teachability of virtue and only asks whether Protagoras thinks the various virtues—temperance, courage, piety, justice and wisdom—are parts of virtue as the nose, eyes, mouth, etc. are parts of the face or as the parts of gold are parts of the whole of a piece of gold. (329d) Protagoras answers that the parts of virtue are analogous to the parts of a face and “unlike each other, both in themselves and in their powers or functions.” (330b) Socrates then tries to get Protagoras to agree first that justice and piety, and then that temperance and wisdom, are not dissimilar in the way he originally claimed. He succeeds at least in getting Protagoras to agree that temperance and wisdom have the same polar opposite and that they are “one thing.” (333b) (328d-335a) (4) Shortly after making this concession, Protagoras breaks off the conversation with Socrates. After intervention by various members of the audience of the discussion, Protagoras agrees to continue the discussion, but chooses to discuss virtue through poetry. Protagoras 4 attempts to make Socrates contradict himself while interpreting a poem of Simonides. Socrates manages to avoid this largely by an extraordinarily parodic interpretation of the poem. (335a- 348c) (5) Socrates steers the conversation back to the question of the relations between the various parts of virtue. He allows Protagoras to change his view, and the sophist now claims that justice, temperance, wisdom and piety are closely related, 4 but that courage is entirely dissimilar. (349d) Socrates then attempts to show that courage is a sort of wisdom, arguing from the hedonistic premise identifying living well as living a life in which pleasure outweighs pain. (351c) Protagoras eventually agrees to the opposite of what he previously asserted concerning courage and wisdom. (348c-360e) (6) Socrates then briefly summarizes the results of the dialogue: if the conversation could speak, it would mock Socrates and Protagoras for being inconsistent.